Memorandum submitted by Research
Councils UK (CRU 44)

1. Research
Councils UK
(RCUK) is a strategic partnership set up to champion the research supported by
the seven UK Research Councils. RCUK was established in 2002 to enable the
Councils to work together more effectively to enhance the overall impact and
effectiveness of their research, training and innovation activities,
contributing to the delivery of the Government's objectives for science and
innovation. Further details are available at www.rcuk.ac.uk.

2. This evidence
is submitted by RCUK on behalf of the Research Councils and represents their
independent views. It does not include or necessarily reflect the views of the
Department for Business, Innovation, and Skills.

Introductory
comments

3.
Research Councils fund climate change research at the University
of East Anglia (UEA). Though some grants are currently held by scientists
within the Climatic Research Unit
(CRU) the Research Councils are not major funders of the CRU. All Research Council funding is approved through a rigorous peer review system in which
applications are examined by a number of reviewers, including some
international reviewers.

4. In addition to these grants, a contract using funding from the
Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) was issued in November 2005 by the
then Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (now
incorporated within the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)) for
the British Atmospheric Data Centre
(BADC)[1] to procure an
updated version of the CRU high-resolution climate dataset, and software to
allow BADC to carry out ongoing updates to the dataset. The desire of all
parties in this contract was to make both the dataset and the methodology used
in its construction more easily available and transparent. Approximately
500 registered BADC users have accessed the data to date.

5.
RCUK is fully supportive of access to data to validate
research, and issued
its policy on good research conduct in July 2009[2].
This policy makes clear:

· misrepresentation
of data, for example suppression of relevant findings, and/or data, or
knowingly, recklessly or by gross negligence, presenting a flawed
interpretation of data is unacceptable;

· relevant primary data and
research evidence should be accessible to
others for reasonable periods after the completion of the research: data should
normally be preserved and accessible for ten years, but for projects of
clinical or major social, environmental or heritage importance, for 20 years or
longer.

6.
The evidence for climate change comes not only from the temperature records but
also from, for example, long term changes in: sea level rise, ecosystem
degradation, intensity of rainfall changes, incidence of droughts etc. The
joint Met Office, NERC and Royal Society
"Climate Science Statement" highlights the weight of evidence for
human-induced climate change[3].

Q1. What are the
implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

7.
Discussion of this question should await the outcome of Independent Review of
the allegations, to be headed by Sir Muir Russell.

Q2. Are the
terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December
2009 by UEA adequate?

8.
In circumstances where there is a question of
research integrity we would expect the employing organisation to undertake an
investigation in the first instance. Research Councils require
an award holding organisation to have a robust policy/process for undertaking
such a review, and where appropiate for reporting the outcome to the relevant
councils.

9. It is not our position to intervene on individual cases where
investigations are still in process, so it would be inappropriate to make any
comment on the terms of reference of this review.

Q3. How independent are the other two
international data sets?

10.
At this stage, this issue is most appropriately assessed through the evidence of
the research community and independent leading individual scientists rather
than research funding bodies. As such, it would be inappropriate to make any further
comment at this stage.